Americas

The established political order in the US has been shaken up by Bernie
Sanders’ campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination…

The established political order in the US has been shaken up by
Bernie Sanders’ campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. Not
only has he tapped into a widespread anti-corporate mood, he has also
fired up interest in socialist ideas. TOM CREAN reports on the impact of
his campaign, and the tasks it sets for the workers’ movement.

The 2016 US presidential campaign is in full swing and its key lesson so
far is that, despite the avalanche of money from the super-rich, the
huge anger of working people and big sections of the middle class at the
establishment is finding expression. In the Democratic Party, Bernie
Sanders – a self-declared democratic socialist whose call for a
‘political revolution’ against the billionaire class has excited
hundreds of thousands – is building a serious challenge to Hillary
Clinton. Only a few months ago, the media portrayed Clinton as a shoo-in
for the Democratic nomination. More ominously, Donald Trump, notorious
for his call to deport all eleven million undocumented immigrants in the
US, has been leading the polls on the Republican side for months. His
right populist appeal has created an enormous headache for the party’s
elders.

These developments are the political reflection of the deep crisis of
the capitalist system beginning in 2007-08 which led to savage attacks
by the ruling class against the public sector and workers’ rights. This
was followed by an economic recovery which has overwhelmingly benefited
the rich. The latest data from the US Census Bureau shows that median
household income in the US was 6.5% lower in 2014 than in 2007. The jobs
being created are overwhelmingly low paid and working conditions are
worsening.

Since 2011 we have seen growing resistance, beginning that year with the
uprising of workers and youth in Wisconsin against the state’s
newly-elected right-wing governor, Scott Walker, who set out to destroy
public-sector unions. A few months later, the Occupy movement exploded
on the national scene, raising the banner of the 99% and putting the
question of inequality firmly on the agenda. Since the killing of
Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, just over a year ago, tens of
thousands of black youth have taken the road of struggle. And the fast
food workers’ actions for $15 an hour and a union have led to a movement
to raise the minimum wage at local level. This first succeeded in
Seattle in 2014 after the election of Socialist Alternative’s Kshama
Sawant to the city council.

Citizens United

But in terms of national politics it is the domination by corporate
interests – through an army of lobbyists and massive campaign donations
as well as the never-ending dysfunction in Congress – which has provoked
the most outrage. In 2010, the US Supreme Court effectively ruled in the
Citizens United case that there could be no restrictions placed on
corporate spending in federal elections. Since then there has been a
flood of money from the super-rich, particularly into so-called ‘Super
PACs’ (political action committees) that pay for ads on behalf of
candidates while nominally being independent of their campaigns.

As the New York Times reported (11 October), in this election cycle a
mere 158 families have contributed an incredible $176 million, fully
half of the total raised to support all the candidates so far. The bulk
of the money from those families is going to Republican candidates. Most
of these donors have made their fortunes in finance or the energy sector
and are primarily focused on removing any regulation or taxation
affecting their profits.

The same article points out, though, that the overwhelmingly right-wing
views of the 158 families are not in sync with those of ordinary people:
"Two thirds of Americans support higher taxes on those earning $1
million or more a year... while six in ten favour more government
intervention to reduce the gap between rich and poor... nearly seven in
ten favour preserving Social Security and Medicare [basic government
pension and public health insurance for people over 65] as they are".

Many liberal commentators have said that there is no way to resist the
deluge of corporate cash unleashed in the wake of Citizens United. This
type of fatalism is usually connected to the idea that progressive
workers and youth have no choice but to support the ‘lesser evil’
corporate-approved alternative.

But Bernie Sanders’ fundraising shows this fatalism is false. Uniquely
among the presidential candidates in the two main parties, Sanders has
refused to take money from big business. Nevertheless, in the three
months from July to September, his campaign raised $26 million, almost
as much as Hillary Clinton’s, and he has almost as much cash in hand as
she does. His campaign has 650,000 donors, typically giving $30 each.
Besides showing how Sanders’ campaign has tapped into mass anger at the
ruling elite, this is also an indication of the potential to mobilise
resources for independent working-class politics in the US in the next
period.

Historic campaign

Sanders’ campaign is part of an international trend, including the rise
of Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain and Jeremy Corbyn’s dramatic
ascent to the leadership of the British Labour Party. In all these
cases, sections of the working class and youth have been looking for a
way to push back against austerity, neo-liberalism and to break up the
established political order. Like Corbyn, Sanders’ campaign has also led
to a surge of interest in socialism.

At the first Democratic debate on 12 October, watched by a record
audience of 15 million, Sanders was questioned about calling himself a
socialist. He responded that, "democratic socialism is about saying that
it is immoral and wrong that the top one-tenth of 1% in this country…
own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%".

When he was then asked jokingly if he was a capitalist, Sanders
retorted: "Do I consider myself part of the casino capitalist process by
which so few have so much and so many have so little, by which Wall
Street’s greed and recklessness wrecked this economy? No, I don’t. I
believe in a society where all people do well. Not just a handful of
billionaires".

The website vox.com reported that Sanders’ debate contributions led to a
spike in searches for the word ‘socialism’ on the online Merriam-Webster
dictionary. This comes on top of a series of polls in recent years
showing vastly increased support for socialism as a broad concept,
especially among people under 30.

Key aspects of Sanders’ programme have wide appeal. This includes his
support for a $15 federal minimum wage; free tuition for all public
colleges and universities; breaking up the big banks; ending the
policies which have led to the mass incarceration of black youth; and
opposing corporate-approved trade deals like the recently unveiled Trans
Pacific Partnership (TPP) between the US and eleven other countries on
the Pacific Rim.

Key contradiction

Socialist Alternative (the US sister organisation of the Socialist
Party) has welcomed Sanders’ candidacy because it is contributing to the
radicalisation of millions of people. Unlike some on the left we have
chosen to actively engage Sanders’ supporters rather than stand on the
sidelines because Sanders is running in the Democratic primaries. When
Sanders was considering whether to run, we urged that he should do so as
an independent with the goal of using his campaign to help lay the basis
for a new party of the left. One can debate whether he would have
created the same level of enthusiasm as an independent left candidate,
but he could definitely have reached millions on a clearer basis and
created a political instrument for working people that would have lasted
beyond his campaign.

But since he made the decision to run in the Democratic primaries, we
have urged him to continue his campaign as an independent were he to
lose the primaries, and certainly not to support the Democratic Party’s
eventual Wall Street-backed nominee. Sanders has said previously that if
Clinton wins the Democratic nomination he would support her. This would
be a serious mistake. Socialist Alternative has consistently stressed
the central contradiction of Sanders’ campaign: that it is trying to
challenge the corporate domination of politics while accepting the
framework of the thoroughly corporate-dominated Democratic Party. We
have also explained our disagreements with Sanders on a number of
issues, particularly on foreign policy.

Sanders has declared that he wants to avoid a ‘negative’ campaign. In
one sense this is understandable given the vicious slanders that many US
politicians like to engage in, rather than discussing real issues, but
how can Sanders’ campaign defeat determined and ruthless establishment
foes like Clinton unless it brings the fight to them?

It is clear that the more Sanders’ campaign looks like a real electoral
threat, the more the corporate elite with its huge resources, including
the vast array of media outlets it controls, will go on the attack. In
fact, this has already begun with vicious attacks on Sanders in the
likes of the New York Times in the wake of the televised debate.

A real political revolution

The central question, however, is not Sanders himself but how the
process evolves, and particularly what conclusions his legion of
supporters draws from this experience. The key question Socialist
Alternative members have been raising at local People for Bernie
meetings and mass rallies is: how will we actually achieve the bold
progressive demands that have galvanized people into action? Or to put
it another way: what does a real political revolution against the
billionaires look like?

First of all, it is necessary to build a mass movement against
inequality, poverty and racism in workplaces, communities, campuses and
on the streets, centered on the social power of the working class.
Sanders himself has called for mass action, including a million-student
march in Washington for free college education. This would be an
excellent start.

But what is also critical is to begin now to build a new political
force, independent of all corporate influence, that really represents
the interests of the 99%. This is not compatible with remaining in the
framework of the Democratic Party. Many of Sanders’ supporters have
become understandably excited about the possibility of him winning the
Democratic nomination which, despite his increased poll numbers, we
think remains remote.

However, even if his campaign were to overcome all the obstacles in the
primaries intended to weed out radical challengers, without making
fundamental compromises, the apparatus and the bulk of the elected
Democratic Party officials would work overtime to undermine him in the
general election. A Sanders presidency is simply not acceptable to any
section of the ruling class, not so much because his politics represents
a fundamental threat to their system but because of the aspirations and
expectations such a development would trigger among huge sections of
working people.

Many of Sanders’ supporters agree – despite their enthusiasm for him
standing in the primaries – that the Democratic Party cannot ultimately
be used as the vehicle to win such a radical programme. We are
highlighting these points precisely in order to help organise and move
the broadest possible section of the hundreds of thousands inspired by
his campaign beyond the framework of the Democrats. The discussion about
the way forward will heat up as the primary votes approach, first in
Iowa and New Hampshire next February, and will sharpen if Sanders wins
one of these contests on the road to ‘super Tuesday’ in March, when a
large number of states hold their primaries.

The danger of right populism

The importance of Sanders’ campaign should not, however, blind us to the
real danger of right-wing populism which has also asserted itself in the
early stages of this election cycle. Besides Trump, the billionaire real
estate developer, Ben Carson, a black neurosurgeon, has also received
significant support, particularly from Christian conservatives, by
arguing, for example, that a Muslim should not be allowed to become
president of the US.

But Trump remains the key expression of this phenomenon. Much of the
liberal left has spent its time deriding Trump as a buffoon. While this
may be an entertaining Facebook pastime, it does not help us to
understand the appeal he has for a section of the white middle class and
working class. One element of this appeal is that Trump has repeatedly
pointed out how politicians are bought by the ‘donor class’ including
himself.

When asked at the first Republican debate about his donations to
Democrats, he replied: "You better believe it... I will tell you that
our system is broken. I gave to many people. Before this, before two
months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I
give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years
later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. And that’s
a broken system".

Trump offers himself as a billionaire financing his own campaign who
cannot be bought by special interests; he’s his own special interest.
But at a deeper level he and other right populists tap into the deep
uncertainty created by the economic crisis and cultural and demographic
change. Besides appealing explicitly to anti-immigrant sentiment which
is again on the rise among sections of the population after receding for
a period, he also talks about restoring the dominance of the US globally
and ‘making America great again’.

Despite Trump and Carson’s current strength in the polls, the most
likely scenario is that the ridiculously large Republican field of
candidates will start to thin significantly after the first couple of
primaries and the establishment will rally around an ‘anti-Trump’
candidate. But even if Trump finally fades, in the absence of a fighting
labour movement or a strong organised left, the space for right populism
can grow, reinforcing divisions within the working class. This shows the
urgency of using the current opening, created by mass disgust with the
establishment and broad sympathy with left demands, to make a
breakthrough for independent working-class politics.

What will a new party look like?

Of course, seizing this opportunity is not straightforward and raises
many complex questions. The two capitalist parties maintain a virtual
monopoly at national level and the organised left is very weak on the
ground. Lesser evilist arguments continue to have a major effect on
large sections of progressive workers, youth, women and LGBTQ people,
especially in national elections. This is because of the overt hostility
of the Republicans to the rights of workers, women and other oppressed
sections of society and the current lack of a viable alternative. But
this dynamic is much less evident at local level where many large and
medium sized cities are virtual one-party states, usually dominated by
the Democrats.

When Socialist Alternative member Kshama Sawant was elected to the
Seattle city council with over 95,000 votes in November 2013 in a
citywide race, the local media soon began to refer to Socialist
Alternative as Seattle’s ‘second party’. Given the almost complete
absence of an organised Republican Party in Seattle this was essentially
accurate. Over the course of the past two years, Kshama and Socialist
Alternative have had a dramatic effect, helping to force a clear shift
to the left in Seattle’s politics and creating a model of what could be
accomplished in other cities in the next period, and then extended to
Congressional races.

One of the challenges in trying to make the case for a new political
party of the 99% to a wider audience is to explain what such a party
would look like given the lack of any recent models in the US. It would
have to be a party of struggle rooted in workplaces and communities,
linking the movements in the streets to the fight against both corporate
parties in city councils and Congress. Such a party must also have a
genuinely democratic internal life and accountable structures so that
the lessons of struggles and political campaigns can be fully
assimilated and thereby strengthen the party’s roots in the broader
working class.

The Seattle model

This is the type of politics Socialist Alternative sets out to develop
in Seattle. Kshama’s 2013 campaign focused on the call for a $15 an hour
minimum wage, based on the impact of the national days of action by fast
food workers, and our victory helped to take this issue to a new level.
Through building a grassroots campaign, 15Now, in Seattle with the
support of key unions, Socialist Alternative and Kshama played a leading
role in achieving the first local $15 minimum wage in the country in
2014, which led to further breakthroughs in Chicago, San Francisco and
Los Angeles.

Now Kshama and Socialist Alternative are fighting to win rent control in
Seattle and to push back against the profit lust of the developers and
their allies in the political establishment. This battle also has
important national repercussions, as working people in city after city
face rapid rent increases and destructive gentrification. The victory on
the minimum wage and the fight around other social issues is also
helping to spur the Seattle labour movement into greater activity, as
evidenced by the recent five-day teachers’ strike. This shows how
developments on the political plane can help to spur social struggle and
working-class activity.

While national attention increasingly focuses on the presidential race,
the key immediate battle for the US left is re-electing Kshama Sawant in
November. Kshama’s campaign has raised over $400,000 (like Bernie
Sanders, overwhelmingly from small donations) which would have been
previously thought impossible for a socialist in a local race. This type
of fundraising is necessary because equally large amounts of corporate
money are flowing into the campaign of our opponent. The ruling elite
also sees the importance and for them the danger of the model of left
politics that is developing in Seattle.

But Kshama’s re-election is also essential because it will give US
socialists a platform to intervene in the key national developments that
will unfold in 2016. Then, we could see significant steps towards
establishing a new left political force, especially as a huge debate
unfolds within and around Sanders’ campaign about the way forward to
achieve real change for working people.